agent_workload

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the output (open tickets per agent, priority breakdown, highlighting overloaded agents) but does not explain how 'overloaded' is defined, whether it accesses any resources, or if group_id restricts the scope. The return value is covered by output schema, but behavior lacks detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could benefit from a brief mention of the group_id parameter without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete but misses the role of group_id. An agent would need to infer that group_id filters by group, which is not obvious.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one optional parameter, group_id, but the description does not mention it or explain its purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it fails to clarify how group_id affects the results.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it shows open tickets per agent with a priority breakdown and highlights overloaded agents. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like csat_summary or group_distribution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for monitoring agent workload, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide when-not scenarios. Among siblings, it is unique, so no direct comparison needed, but more explicit guidance would improve it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.